https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93082
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
I've also reported this to Apple as FB8919799 (and on openradar - why not?
https://openradar.appspot.com/radar?id=4952611266494464).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Bug ID: 10
Summary: ICE on s390 (internal compiler error: in extract_insn,
at recog.c:2770)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 51418
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51418=edit
build.log from compiling squashfs-tools-4.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> The issue was originally observed on a native s390 machine
> (s390-ibm-linux-gnu) but I ended up minimising the ICE using cvise via
> cross. I hit the issue when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
This appears to work fine (cannot reproduce the ICE) with GCC 12 at
1bc66017c118229a101f0a2c097a9c209f777883:
```
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Confirmed that the GCC 11 branch backport works here. Thanks all!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102757
Bug ID: 102757
Summary: ICE on amd64 (internal compiler error: in
expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:10014)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103398
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> No. The whole reason why there is an option is because it is optional.
A fair amount of future-new-defaults start off as optional and eventually
become it. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103910
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Fixed. The bug has been latent since r0-81404 (4.3.0 release). I doubt many
> people are testing on opteron any mores but if someone wants to backport the
> fix I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103910
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
(and thank you to both you and slyfox!)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104973
Bug ID: 104973
Summary: GCC 11.2.1 build failure with Go support (mv: cannot
stat 'cpugen.o': No such file or directory)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104973
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
I'm forwarding a report from downstream which two people have commented in:
1. Dennis, the original reporter;
2. PaX Team, who commented too.
They're likely the same issue or related. I can't reproduce it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103910
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> Someone would have hit this a long time ago, in GCC 4.3.0 or latter.
My point was that some software has recently started building with PCH by
default and hence
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105600
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Thanks Andrew. I spent a while trying to minimise it using that but I've got a
bit stuck. I'm used to reducing normal ICEs but link-time/LTO ones seem to be
harder to me.
I was going to upload the full lot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105695
Bug ID: 105695
Summary: GCC 10.3.1 (20220519) build failure with GCC 12
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105792
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105600
Bug ID: 105600
Summary: ICE with LTO when building Mumble from git on arm64
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105573
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
1. Could you consider the fix for backporting please to 11? It works for me
as-is.
2. Will the testcase be committed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104964
--- Comment #18 from Sam James ---
Thanks. I reported the Qt issue upstream at
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-103782.
I've hit the ACL issue independently in Gentoo and will forward that upstream
too (https://bugs.gentoo.org/847280).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toolchain at gentoo dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105709
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Thanks Siddhesh. I was suspicious of how contorted the minimised version was
but I went with it given it still crashed.
And I think I get what the issue is with the original code now too. Cheers for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104964
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
I think I might have hit the same thing in qt_readlink:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/847145. Martin, did you chase down the Qt issue you
had?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105709
Bug ID: 105709
Summary: FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 (*** buffer overflow detected ***:
terminated) on Qt
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105709
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 53024
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53024=edit
non-reduced-qt.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105709
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 53025
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53025=edit
reduced-qt.cxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105709
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Minimised reproducer works with Clang but fails with GCC 12 w/ F_S=3:
qt.cxx:
```
extern "C" void __readlink_chk(char *, char *, long, long);
char readlink___path, readlink___buf;
namespace Qt {
enum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105709
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
```
$ gcc --version
gcc (Gentoo Hardened 12.1.1_p20220521 p5) 12.1.1 20220521
Copyright (C) 2022 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105709
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 53023
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53023=edit
non-reduced-qt.cxx
(I've attached `non-reduced-qt.cxx` in case it's more illustrative. I didn't do
much to it, just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105709
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Let me try hack something to reduce but test with Clang where possible. It's
hard because the mkspecs stuff which leaks into the preprocessed original
source doesn't build with Clang.
In the meantime, could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #46 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90084
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103324
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Using make synchronisation can help a bit:
https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Parallel-Output.html. It's
made our build logs in Gentoo a lot more readable for GCC, FWIW.
As for the bug request:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105312
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
I'm guessing not but is it worth adding the SPARC testcase from the dupe, given
this one is only run for arm?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
Bug ID: 106230
Summary: ICE when building folly-2022.07.04.00 in
pop_local_binding (cp/name-lookup.cc:2474)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Clang does build with the original (folly) if I don't preprocess it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 53275
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53275=edit
ccHXKhJc.ii (minimised reproducer)
I think I need to re-run cvise because the minimised version doesn't build with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106230
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Ignore me on the last part re Clang. It doesn't build there either with the
reduced version or original because of fortify bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106102
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
See also bug 104799.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105688
--- Comment #24 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #21)
> I have a similar issue under Debian/unstable with GCC old of a few months,
> where in x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/po, msgfmt fails with an error like
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106114
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
>This is less likely to occur in GCC12 as less places rewrite the IL under the
>covers, but it should still be applied ot that branch just in case.
Should the bug be reopened for now then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104637
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Could this be backported to 10 + 11 please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105859
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Ah, it's probably a dupe of bug 105852.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105859
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 53091
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53091=edit
vector.ii.orig.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105852
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Thanks for reporting, beat me to it. Looks like it's same on latest 11 (11.3.1
20220602) and 12 (12.1.1 20220604) snapshots.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105852
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
*** Bug 105859 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105859
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105859
Bug ID: 105859
Summary: ICE in instantiate_decl
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105859
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 53090
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53090=edit
minimised.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #31 from Sam James ---
What CPU do you have?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105931
Bug ID: 105931
Summary: [12 regression] ICE in cxx_eval_constant_expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105756
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Thanks a bunch. Unfortunately the original issue (not the reduced one) still
fails, but I've filed bug 105931 for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
--- Comment #33 from Sam James ---
As far as I can tell, that CPU might have AVX, but not AVX2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106011
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105950
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #24 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105931
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herrtimson at yahoo dot de,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105931
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Interesting!
The minimised version of this is:
```
$ cat test.cxx
template decltype(0 % ElemSize == 0)
```
```
$ g++ -o test.o -c -O2 test.cxx
new.cxx:1:52: internal compiler error: unexpected expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105756
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Thanks! Could you consider backporting to 12.x soonish, if possible? I ask
because with this, the 12.x branch is then in a pretty good state for more
widespread testing.
(Unfortunately, I got a bit unlucky and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106431
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
(Ignore the comment about `as` hanging, that's just a side-effect of -pipe,
which I didn't clock at first.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106431
Bug ID: 106431
Summary: Hang when compiling large printf() file (from glibc's
tst-printf-bz18872) on HPPA with -ggdb3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106431
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Ah, nice! It's substantially faster (5 seconds) with -fno-var-tracking.
Do you need me to try anything else?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106431
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 53349
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53349=edit
a-foo.i.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105573
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
It occurs with -mcpu=native or -mcpu=niagara4 but not if I drop that.
```
$ for t in param target; do cmd="gcc -Q -O2 --help=$t"; diff -U0 <(LANG=C $cmd)
<(LANG=C $cmd -mcpu=niagara4); done
--- /dev/fd/63
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105573
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Confirmed: if I apply that patch, 11.3.0 works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105573
Bug ID: 105573
Summary: ICE when building numpy on SPARC64
Product: gcc
Version: 11.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
Thanks Dave. I'd seen this failure when testing glibc 2.36 but hadn't looked
into it more (too warm to keep machine on).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #12 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> Patient: Doctor it hurts when I do this.
> Doctor: then don't do that and if you read the instructions I gave you I
> told you I would hurt this way.
>
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78014
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
FWIW, the Clang counterpart to this bug is
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/41959.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91092
--- Comment #21 from Sam James ---
Followers of this bug may be interested to learn:
1. Clang has made this change in LLVM 15 (as well as some other related
changes:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106899
Bug ID: 106899
Summary: Snapshots do not contain pre-generated man pages &
info pages
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106899
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Yeah, I understand it's not an error per se, just wondering if it could be
considered to add them.
It looks like they're generated from the same script used for releases:
maintainer-scripts/gcc_release (as it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108224
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Ah, based on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427700#c3 &
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427700#c5, maybe the source really
does just need splitting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208
Bug ID: 108208
Summary: Build failure on large LLVM source files on PPC
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108250
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Do you know which object file inside llvm-tblgen is being miscompiled?
> You can do a binary search on object files and then provide the preprocessed
> source for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108250
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
For completeness, I should note, because some commits couldn't be built (only a
handful), git said (I've converted the commits) that it could be any of:
r12-5382-g616ca1024a79c6
r12-5383-g22c242342e38eb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108250
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
LLVM build with working llvm-tblgen (with gcc revert as described above):
https://dev.gentoo.org/~sam/bugs/gcc/gcc-llvm-tblgen-ppc/bisect-maybe-broken-2022-12-28-no-hang-revert.tar.xz
LLVM build with broken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108250
Bug ID: 108250
Summary: [12/13 regression] llvm-tblgen miscompiled on
powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu since
r12-5383-g22c242342e38eb
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108250
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Flags used to build LLVM:
export FFLAGS='-O2 -mcpu=powerpc -mtune=powerpc -pipe'
export CXXFLAGS='-O2 -mcpu=powerpc -mtune=powerpc -pipe -ggdb
-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS=1'
export LDFLAGS='-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108250
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
GCC built at releases/gcc-12 at a3fbfc1027e9edcd14bb290b5702504d80d9e8fe with a
revert of 22c242342e38ebffa6bbf7e86e7a1e4abdf0d686 which produces a working
llvm-tblgen:
```
$ gcc-12 -V
Using built-in specs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108250
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
Both Arsen and I gave it a go and it doesn't seem to make a difference either
way (it doesn't induce miscompilation with the revert, and it doesn't fix
miscompilation without the revert).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93082
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
This seems to be fixed in the latest macOS SDK (13.1 at least). But obviously
that doesn't help folks who need to use older SDKs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
--- Comment #33 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #32)
> Do other targets want to follow suite for GCC 13 here?
I think the deviation for x86 and !x86 as-is will lead to further confusion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108379
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 54252
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54252=edit
coreutils-tee.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108379
Bug ID: 108379
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false positive on conditional
use
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108379
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Minimum command needed to reproduce:
```
$ gcc-13 -Werror -Wuninitialized -O2 -c tee.i
src/tee.c: In function 'tee_files':
src/tee.c:272:25: error: 'out_pollable' may be used uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107963
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108022
Bug ID: 108022
Summary: [11/12/13 regression] -frecord-gcc-switches doesn't
record preprocessor macros since
7caa49706316e650fb67719e1a1bf3a35054b685
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108022
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12/13 regression] |[11/12/13 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107078
--- Comment #22 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Tomasz Kłoczko from comment #21)
> On emore time.
> You are commenting under GNU C Compilet issue during linking firebird
> binaries linking.
> *COMPILER* (not firebird) is core dumping.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107078
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #19 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108087
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Sorry, output got mangled slightly by ansifiltering:
```
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-13.0./work/gcc-13.0./gcc/rust/rust-lang.cc:67:17:
warning: type ‘struct lang_type’ violates the C++ One Definition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108087
Bug ID: 108087
Summary: -Wodr warnings in rust/rust-lang.cc (lang_type)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107730
Bug ID: 107730
Summary: Trivial -Wreturn-type false positive when function
marked static
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107730
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Note that if I drop 'static', the warning goes away. Clang does not warn at
all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107730
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107730
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107048
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-December/608723.html and so
on. kees mentioned this is currently in review and a new version is being spun
up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
(In reply to felix from comment #15)
He means apinski who submitted a patch, not you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108531
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
LLVM side: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60269
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
